Judgments - Sentence
GURMIT SINGH & ANR. Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB
SUSHIL ANSAL Vs. STATE THR.CBI
JASBIR SINGH Vs. TARA SINGH & ORS
BHANUBEN AND ANR Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT
Merely because an accused has been held liable to be punished under Section 498A IPC, it does not follow that on the same evidence, he must also and necessarily be held guilty of having abetted the commission of suicide by the women concerned under 306 IPC. Therefore, the conviction and sentence for offence punishable under Section 306 read with Section 114 of the Full Judgment
INDRAVIJAY ALOK Vs. STATE OF M.P.
FIREMAN GHULAM MUSTAFA Vs. STATE OF UTTARANCHAL(NOW UTTARAKHAND)
HARSARUP PANWAR VS STATE OF DELHI THROUGH CBI
Ghasi Ram & 2 Others Vs State of U.P.
MOHAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASHTAN
STATE OF PUNJAB Vs. SAURABH BAKSHI
It is sometimes said in an egocentric and uncivilised manner that law cannot bind the individual actions which are perceived as flaws by the large body of people, but, the truth is and has to be that when the law withstands the test of the constitutional scrutiny in a democracy, the individual notions are to be ignored. It is the duty of Full Judgment
SANJIV KUMAR @ GORA Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB
We have considered the rival submissions of the parties, and we are of the view that sentencing for any offence has a social goal. In each case, facts and circumstances of that case are always required to be taken into consideration. For the purpose of just and proper Full Judgment
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH Vs. RAM PAL
Only question raised for consideration is whether the sentence imposed in the facts and circumstances is fair and just. Moreover, in an appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution, this Court does not re-appreciate the evidence, in absence of perversity or patent legal error, merely because a different view was also possible. We are thus, not inclined to reopen Full Judgment
DHIRENDRA KUMAR @ DHIROO Vs. STATE OF UTTARKHAND
As far as reliability of evidence on record is concerned, we are of the view that re-appreciation of evidence is not called for in an appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution in absence of patent illegality or perversity merely because a different view could also be taken. Question whether a case falls under Section 302 or 304 has to be decided from Full Judgment
TEJRAM PATIL Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
The decision of this appeal will rest on the answers to the following two questions : (i) Reliability of DD Exhibit 45 recorded by PSI Sunil Eknadi Wanjari PW 4 made by deceased Savita; (ii) Admissibility and reliability of DDs made by Prabhabai recorded by SJM, Rajiv Babarao Raut Exhibit 41) and PSI Bhila Narayan Bachao (Exhibit 43). However, the Court must be satisfied that the deceased was in a fit mental condition to make the DD and that the statement was faithfully recorded and was otherwise reliable. Full Judgment
RAVINDRA Vs. STATE OF M.P.
In light of the discussion in the foregoing paragraphs, we are of the opinion that the case of the appellant is a fit case for invoking the proviso to Section 376(2)(g) of IPC for awarding lesser sentence, as the incident is 20 years old and the fact that the parties are married and have entered into a compromise, are the adequate and special reasons. Full Judgment
BADRU RAM & ORS. Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN
The Doctrine of parity cannot replace the substantive evidence of the two injured eye-witnesses mentioned above, who have been believed concurrently by the courts below. The evidence of the two injured eye-witnesses is clear - this is not a case of sudden provocation and the mere absence of motive does not bring home the lesser charge. The appeal Full Judgment
BINOY AND ANR Vs. STATE OF KERALA
STATE OF M.P. VERSUS MEHTAAB
- It is the duty of the Court to award just sentence to a convict against whom charge is proved. While every mitigating or aggravating circumstance may be given due weight, mechanical reduction of sentence to the period already undergone cannot be appreciated. Sentence has to be fair not only to the accused but also to the victim and Full Judgment
BHIM SINGH & ANR. Versus STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
-The demand for dowry can be made at any time and not necessarily before marriage.- -Unlike as in Section 304- B where the court "shall presume" dowry death, when the prosecution has established the ingredients, under Section 113A of the Evidence Act, discretion has been conferred upon the Court wherein it has been provided that the Court may Full Judgment